Fireworks, Ben Kimberly

LYDIA SHERMAN writes at Home Living:

Today I am staying home and members of my family are providing our traditional home-parade, where we dress up in colonial clothing, march across the lawn with our flags and hats, fiddles and flutes. I plan to ride my tricycle (an adult sized one). After the parade, which we will film, as usual, there is an out-door buffet and  dining area set up for our cold lunch, consisting of southern fried chicken, rolls, coleslaw, tomato-cucumber salad in olive oil and vinegar, dill dressing, and watermelon and punch  made from natural fruit juices.

Like last year, we will hear political, ‘”train-stop” speeches, using the porch as the railings on the back of the train, as the podium, in order to imitate the political tours of candidates of the 1800’s. This year there will be a presidential candidate speaking at the train stop, a speech from a woman about women’s rights (it is not what you may think) and a message from an air force veteran who lives nearby. [cont.]

— Comments —

Alex writes:

Lydia Sherman quotes an email from another blogger that begins thus: “Today, as Americans celebrate the 237th year since we declared our independence from the tyranny which once held our country in it’s [sic] clutches.”

People keep repeating this tyranny claim but what factual basis do we have to believe that the colonies lived in the clutches of tyranny? What exactly was so tyrannical about Britain’s rule in her North American colonies?

It seems to me that the belief that the colonial period was a time of tyranny is like the belief that before the victory of liberalism – just a few decades ago – life was a dark tyranny of inequality, racism and discrimination. Both of these beliefs make it easier for the ruling class to rule, and that’s why they are promoted. The least we can do is to stop believing, repeating and promoting them.

James P. writes:

“People keep repeating this tyranny claim but what factual basis do we have to believe that the colonies lived in the clutches of tyranny? What exactly was so tyrannical about Britain’s rule in her North American colonies?”

It was the same terrible, remorseless tyranny that held Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in brutal subjection for centuries. If we hadn’t escaped that tyranny, we’d be as downtrodden and backward as the miserable Canadians, Australians, and Kiwis are today.

What the “patriots” described as “tyranny” was in fact no more than the condition of being a colony — and not even a particularly harshly governed one by the standards of the day. England could not give the “patriots” what they wanted without giving them their independence — which was what the “patriots” actually wanted all along, notwithstanding all their protestations of loyalty.

Elizabeth writes:

Let the colonists speak for themselves about tyranny. Just read the Declaration of Independence. We think things are bad today– look at what they were going through.

Here’s an excerpt:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Alex writes:

Poor, poor colonists.

Oh, please. What a bunch of nonsense. People who decided to grab power came up with a long list of grievances to make their power grab look legitimate, and we’re still eating it up two hundred years later? “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” I’m sure they were the most wholesome indeed, because the revolutionaries said so. “He has endeavoured to prevent the [German] population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners.” The king wanted the new England to remain English instead of becoming a new Germany, which gave him enough trouble in the Old World, even as the colonists were hugely in favor of massive German immigration? How racist of him.

The king dealt harshly with insurrection among his disloyal subjects ungrateful for the great freedom and vast opportunities they had in the new land abundant in incomparable riches? More kings should have done so throughout history, such as the Russian tsars in the hundred years preceding the Russian revolution, or the French kings before the French one, instead of feeling they didn’t really have a right to rule without asking every stupid peasant for his input. How do you like your democracy and its most wholesome laws? How do you like your independent judges? How do you like your unchecked immigration?

Liberty has nothing to do with the ability to elect representatives to pass laws. In fact, the more such ability, the less liberty the people enjoy. You’ve had that ability for two hundred years now – where’s the liberty?

Do we aspire to be traditionalists, or do we keep unthinkingly believing in the official propaganda that gives legitimacy to the real tyrants – those who are ruling us now?

This cult of the “Revolutionary War” and its leaders strikes me, a man born and raised in the Soviet Union, as being exactly the same phenomenon as the cult of the “Great October Socialist Revolution” in the U.S.S.R. The revolution freed the people from unspeakable tyranny. Thus, however hard life is now and however worse it gets every year, we should be grateful to and supportive of our government. And if we really don’t like how things are getting, hey, we can vote for a different guy every four years. We live in a democracy, after all. That means we are a free people, right?

 Laura writes:

There are big differences between the Bolsheviks and the American Revolutionaries, but the national mythology serves much the same function, which is to create a false sense of security. As Tocqueville wrote:

What I most reproach in democratic government, as it has been organized in the United States, is not, as many people in Europe claim, its weakness, but on the contrary, its irresistible force. And what is most repugnant to me in America is not the extreme freedom that reigns there, it is the lack of a guarantee against tyranny.

When a man or party suffers an injustice in the United States, whom do you want him to address? Public opinion? that is what forms the majority; the legislative body? it represents the majority and obeys it blindly; the executive power? it is named by the majority and serves as its passive instrument; the public forces? the public forces are nothing other than the majority in arms; the jury? the jury is the majority vested with the right to pronounce decrees; in certain states, the judges themselves are elected by the majority. Therefore, however iniquitous or unreasonable is the measure that strikes you, you must submit to it.

[Democracy in America; University of Chicago, 2000, p. 241]

Mrs. Sherman writes:

To Alex: you say the colonists were crying over nothing, but how much of the early American history do you really know? During the colonial period, Americans were forced to allow foreign soldiers to live in their homes. This was a violation of privacy and of personal freedom. The colonists also had to accept the preachers and religious ministers chosen by the king, to preach in their churches. You say “poor, poor colonists”? The king at the time (commonly called “the mad king, even by Britons today) extracted taxes from the colonists, even though they had no representation in the British parliament. The British sent goods and products that the colonists did not even ask for, and required that they pay for it. Is this right? I would suggest you read some of the court cases of the colonist/lawyer Patrick Henry against the British, and then decide if they were justified in throwing off the oppression of this “mad king.”

Also, King George III was of German descent, a nationality you seem to disparage in your post, as were many of the “George” kings.

Laura writes:

The impositions and restrictions the colonists suffered were nothing — and I mean, nothing — compared to the tyranny we confront today. And this tyranny is a direct outgrowth of the cult of liberty that began with the American founding, which is not to say we would have been better off in the British Commonwealth then or now.

Alex writes:

Elizabeth writes:

We think things are bad today – look at what they were going through.

That’s exactly what your rulers want you to think. As long as they have you thinking this, they are safe.

There are indeed big differences between the Russian and American revolutionaries, but the revolutions themselves are not totally dissimilar. Both destroyed the traditional order that was working well despite radicals’ overblown claims of “oppression” and “tyranny”, and replaced it with a perilous radical new vision of how society should be ordered based on the revolutionaries’ ideas. Because that’s what the American revolution did, rather than simply winning independence for the colonies.

Alex adds:

Lydia writes:

“Also, King George III was of German descent, a nationality you seem to disparage in your post, as were many of the “George” kings.”

Totally missing the point here. If someone opposes mass immigration of Mexicans to America, can it be because he wants it to remain America instead of becoming Mexico? Or is the only possible reason that he disparages Mexicans?

Also, the German immigrants of the time were rearing for Independence. They came to the colonies already wanting independence, and the king knew that. He didn’t want more of them. When the insurrection broke out, virtually all of the two hundred thousand Germans in the colonies supported it.

As to the king’s descent, many European kings were descended from some other country. I am not aware of such kings governing in the interests of their countries of origin being a big problem in the history of Europe.

Modern people forget not only that kings governed by right but also that their governance was usually much better than that of a bunch of corrupt “elected representatives” who succeded them. “Before democracy, there was tyranny” or “without democracy, there would be tyranny” is part of the mythology that legitimizes the real tyranny – the one that rules over us now. The cult of democracy, the use of the word democracy as a synonym not just for good government but even for freedom, is contrary to the facts that are everywhere around us.

James P. writes:

All of the bad things Mrs. Sherman decries were true of colonists in every English colony — and in fact, also true for the majority of people in England itself.

“Americans were forced to allow foreign soldiers to live in their homes.” — No. The Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774 said that troops would be housed in barracks or inns, not private houses, and provided with food and drink. This was the standard practice in England itself. If not enough barracks or inns were available, the troops could be quartered in uninhabited houses, barns or other buildings. It was not reasonable for the colonists to oppose this measure, and furthermore it is a myth that these Acts allowed the billeting of troops in private homes.

“The colonists also had to accept the preachers and religious ministers chosen by the king, to preach in their churches.” — so did everyone in England. The King of England was the head of the Church of England, go figure.

“The king at the time… extracted taxes from the colonists, even though they had no representation in the British parliament.” — No taxation without representation in parliament was not a principle of the British constitution at the time. The vast majority of people in England were not even directly represented in parliament; members of parliament were elected by an insignificant fraction of the people. Furthermore, what the colonists wanted was not representation in parliament, but freedom from the authority of parliament (in short, independence). When the colonists were offered representation in parliament, they were quick to reject it as impractical given the long distances involved. Finally, colonies like Canada and Australia were governed by parliament, and taxed by parliament, for centuries after 1783 without any notable negative or tyrannous effect on them.

“The British sent goods and products that the colonists did not even ask for, and required that they pay for it. Is this right?” — The purpose of the Navigation Act was to strengthen the British Empire and to require the colonies to bear some of the costs of their own defense. This was reasonable. To allow the colonies to trade with whatever country they wanted would defeat the purpose of having an empire. And once again, the Canadians and Australians, among others, were subject to these laws after the American Revolution and suffered no great harm as a result.

“I would suggest you read some of the court cases of the colonist/lawyer Patrick Henry against the British, and then decide if they were justified in throwing off the oppression of this “mad king.”” — I suggest that you read Bernard Bailyn’s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, which shows that the colonists were motivated by totally deluded conspiracy theories.

Dnr writes:

I was intrigued by the comments on this post, mainly referencing what was referred to as a “cult of Revolutionary War”, as if the fight for Independence from the British king was ginned up and totally unjustified, created out of thin air to deceitfully undermine the gracious king. What rubbish, if I must say so! The Founders of this nation created a template for extended liberty to all who love it, and are willing to fight for it. Where else on earth is this possible? Lest we forget, they knew very well the sinful tendencies of the human heart, and did their best to address these in the system of checks and balances they established through the wisdom that they sought from our Creator. Does anyone deny this? Their prolific writings are a solid testimony to these facts, not just during the time of development of our founding documents, but well beyond, and also established through the eyewitness testimony of many others. This aspect of our nation’s birth has not yet been mentioned in comments, yet John Adams warned that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I believe that our nation’s current problems are based on the usurpation of the controls of government by thoroughly corrupt and immoral people, with the willing complicity of the citizens, and that has led to our downfall. It is not that our Founders were corrupt, as seems to be implied by some commenters to this post, but rather that our nation has become corrupt, from the leaders through the populace.

Laura writes:

This is a very important topic that cannot be done full justice in this post. However, regarding Dnr’s point, the Founders and many of the post-colonial leaders indeed had many noble qualities which made them exemplary and honorable leaders. However, they believed in no external moral authority to control democratic impulses — the system of checks and balances answers to no authority other than the individuals who occupy the various branches — and thus established the false gods of liberty and equality, things which are good but not when they become ends in themselves. They — the Founders — were similar to the early Roman leaders who were upright and pious but who established idols and thus eventually were replaced by the immoral and dissolute.

Dnr writes:

Interesting point about the false gods of liberty and equality. However, I truly believe that our Founders knew that they were merely setting up a template, a tool, to be used by a moral (God-fearing) people to govern themselves. I do not believe they expected the representative democracy to be an end in itself, where government reflects perfection, and therefore becomes worthy of worship. Instead, they tried to preempt the base tendencies of man with the design of our unique government. If liberty and equality have become false gods since, it is because of a society that insists on replacing worship of God Almighty with man-made gods, not unlike the Israelites of old. It is not because our Founders themselves deemed these ideas to be worthy of the esteem they reserved only for God. This brings to mind another Founders’ quote, from Benjamin Franklin, “If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, can an empire rise without His aid?”

Alex writes:

Nothing like this system of checks and balances has ever evolved naturally anywhere in the world, before these events or since. This artificial system had to be invented precisely because the previous system of government, which then existed and worked well throughout the civilized world, was destroyed. That traditional system had evolved in a natural process of society ordering itself in accordance with human nature. Having destroyed the natural order of things, of course the Founders had to conjure up a convoluted system of checks and balances instead. Any such system could have only been an artificial and inferior substitution without a chance of working as intended.

Unsurprisingly, the system of checks and balances doesn’t have a good record. The federal government has done whatever it wanted for a very long time now.

Also, the colonists, even though we call them Americans, were British subjects. (And the troops were not foreign, by the way; they were British.) Remembering this would help us understand these events better, instead of simply imbibing the official propaganda.

As to the Founders seeking the wisdom from the Creator, it seems – if we look at the results of their actions, not at their beautiful pronouncements – that all they found was the ludicrous and pernicious premise that all men are created equal. Again, not surprisingly, as the true wisdom of the Creator was embodied in the natural, traditional order the founders destroyed. They were revolutionaries, after all. Revolutionaries are not creators, they are destroyers.

James P. writes:

Dnr writes,

“I was intrigued by the comments on this post, mainly referencing what was referred to as a “cult of Revolutionary War”, as if the fight for Independence from the British king was ginned up and totally unjustified, created out of thin air to deceitfully undermine the gracious king.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, that’s exactly what happened. I refer you again to Bernard Bailyn’s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. He showed that the arguments of the “patriots” had absolutely no basis in fact, but were created out of thin air. As their actual objective was independence, not redress of grievances, the words “deceitful” and “disloyal” are exactly on the mark. Moreover, the methods the “patriots” used to achieve their goals were far from noble; they employed terrorism, mob violence, guerrilla warfare, and the murder, robbery, and expulsion from the country of their political opponents.

It is beside the point that the Founding Fathers created an admirable form of government after they achieved independence, and that our current political elite corrupted that form of government. Revolutionary movements always involve unscrupulous leaders, deluded mobs, and crazed violence, and the American Revolution was no exception.

Alex writes:

I am repeating myself, but what kind of traditionalists are we if it’s not our default position to take the side, or at least to look at the events from the point of view, of the traditional order that was overturned in a social upheaval, rather than siding enthusiastically with those who overturned it? Look at any revolution and you will always find that, despite the revolutionaries’ agitation and propagandistic declarations, there were no compelling reasons to destroy the traditional order and create artificial new “templates,” “tools” and entire forms of government to replace something that worked well because it was based on tradition.

As to that laughable, self-serving list of “injuries” in the Declaration of Independence, surely we all realize that it was written by a bunch of lawyers? Of the five members of the committee the Continental Congress appointed to draft the Declaration, only Franklin was not a lawyer. No wonder it reads like the list of the client’s contrived “injuries” and sufferings in a frivolous lawsuit.

The need to believe that one’s country was founded on the noblest principles by the noblest people driven by the noblest motives and using the noblest means is quite understandable. But sheesh, let’s be adults and face the facts. This is always the necessary first step to improving one’s lot. Fairy tales are for children.

Dnr writes:

James P. writes:

“It is beside the point that the Founding Fathers created an admirable form of government after they achieved independence, and that our current political elite corrupted that form of government. Revolutionary movements always involve unscrupulous leaders, deluded mobs, and crazed violence, and the American Revolution was no exception.”

 So we are to believe that this group of dishonorable, unscrupulous men just stumbled into an “admirable form of government”? And what of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, whose tombstones do not even list “President of the United States” as one of their life’s accomplishments? Do men who sought only power, as James and Alex insist, do such things? Hardly. Never in the history of man has such a government existed, and it could not happen unless the political bonds were thrown off. Dictators do not willingly give up power, it has to be taken back from them. Washington and Jefferson and our other noble Founders did not seek to rule others, and did not even seek the presidency. Your analyses simply do not withstand the test of logic and common sense.

[The discussion continues here.]

Hannon writes:

Dnr’s comments here reminded me of an exchange I had with Lawrence Auster a few years ago:

Dnr seems to see what I see as obvious and not to be dismissed: the idea that society at large carries its own beliefs and behaviors and that these are independent of the government apparatus created or adopted by that society. Modern Americans are suited to our modern government because they have both been synergistically corrupted. Government does not corrupt itself autonomously by its own design, in our case a secular one. The corruption is directly from the people who inhabit every position in society from private to public, who have either lost or rejected whatever stands in the way of their personal and social progress.

To blame our demise on the revolutionary nature of our Founders and what they bequeathed us in the Constitution is an affront to common sense. Did some of the precepts of the former make the downward slide easier? Quite probably. But our transition toward darkness is due to the effects of a much wider liberal modernity that we have allowed to undermine what before we held fast to be good and true. I think the Founding Fathers would be appalled to know that we could not hold our ground, collectively, against such obvious violations of (formerly) common Christian morality and common reason. Our form of government was never the problem.

Please follow and like us: